Here’s a classic clip from BBC Today this morning with Evan Davies showing his OUTRAGE that someone might suggest that a LABOUR party appointed panel to review future UK policing needs may be somewhat unbalanced. Poor old Blair Gibbs of the “right leaning” Policy Exchange think tank  is constantly interrupted, laughed at and contradicted because he has the temerity to suggest that Labour is biased in terms of how it seeks to review UK policing. Davies gives such a robust defence of Labour that I am sure Miliband will be on the phone later to express his deep appreciation…

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Demon1001 says:

    How dare anyone accuse the Labour Party of being partizan? 

    The more that Davies objected, the higher his voice squeaked.  At the end only the neighbourhood dogs were hearing him.


  2. DJ says:

    I guess this must have been part I. After 8 we got part II, an interview with His Lordship himself which managed to use the word ‘independent’ approximately one billion times, without once using the phrase ‘Labour-appointee’.A man from Mars would have had no idea that Lord John was not only given the top job at the Met, but also enobled by them.

    Ditto, we were told the inquiry was needed to take account of the rapidly-changing state of modern policing, but not why no one had noticed those changes in the period 1997-2010.


  3. George R says:

    This article (by Paul Weston, 2009) says a lot about Labour and non-policing (as endorsed by BBC-NUJ):

    Multiculturalism Has Destroyed the British Police


  4. Ben says:

    Evans’ indignation was laughable indeed. One wonders how he would have treated a similarly “independant” enquiry if it had been commissioned by the Conservative Party.


  5. John Anderson says:

    The BBC description of its clip uses the word “coherant”.

    New word to me.  Now “rant” I do understand – it is what a Today presenter does to any right-of-centre interviewee.


  6. As I See It says:

    That is a classic clip of BBC Labour bias at work.

    Two points that I noticed:

    1) This so-called independent commission is setting out to find ‘…a common vision and sense of purpose…’

    2) Blair Gibbs although restrained (presumably under standing orders not to call BBC bias directly) did come out with a line that was bang on target –

    ‘if you disagree with the Government program on various issues you are inclined to support something that bills itself as an independent commission.’


    • Geyza says:

      Common Purpose being the most important, highlighted  words for good reason.

      These “third way” fascists destroyed the labour party from within under the Blairite revolution, and now under Cameron, they are doing exactly the same to the conservative party.  They have owned the Liberal Democrats for some time already.  The entire public sector is utterly infested with ‘Common Purpose’ graduates who are trained to be the “leaders of the post-democratic age”.

      In other words, once the EU has done to us what it has already done to Greece and Italy, these are the selected place-men/women who have been pre-chosen to destroy what is left of the social infrastructure of this country, so that they can replace it with their own Marxist model.


      • NotaSheep says:

        Will the BBC launch an independent investigation into these claims about Common Purpose?


  7. My Site (click to edit) says:

    The only lines the BBC will apparently not step over without pause are white and powdery.

    I just saw the iPlayer of the Newsnight ‘special’ on its co-production with the LSE and Guardian (they even had the reporting carried out by them FFS, with the ‘reporter’ talking about ‘we’ uncaptioned as 3rd party external opinion) with jaw agape.

    Then there was the ‘debate’, where Paxo really showed how lost the plot is.

    A wet Ian Blair aside, it was all gang up on Nick Herbert, egged on by the shrieking moderator, with even the now PC-lobotomised token ‘victim’ chiming in.

    Comes to soemthing when the most balanced views were muttered by David Lammy, who seemed embarassed to be hitched to such a blatantly rigged, clapped out wagon of self-delusion.

    I wonder if part of the deal was a copy of their triumphant ‘testimony’ to each of the ‘interviewed’ rioters to recruit more for the next bundle, which they can circulate via their multi-hundred £ poverty mobiles.

    The BBC now stands accused of being complcit in incitement, on my unwilling dime, and needs holding to account.


  8. George R says:

    The following item is not the most important political story in Britain today (as BBC-NUJ hypes it);  it is just more ‘multicultural’ propaganda as a follow up to yesterday’s BBC-NUJ-Guardian-LSE attempted whitewash of rioters, looters and arsonists.  
    “Lord Stevens launches review of policing for Labour”  


    Understandably, the BBC-NUJ targets as cause of the riots, the police, are not pleased-

    “Police fury over LSE’s bid to blame them for the summer riots”  


  9. Bupendra Bhakta says:

    A rough rule of thumb is that the public sector could produce equal and probably better results for half the cost, so of course the police, where Spanish practices and sundry inefficiencies abound, needs reform.

    The idea that Labour or its placemen have anything to say on this matter is of course risible.


    Yer, he’s risible as well.


  10. Umbongo says:

    Although the bias on Today is now blatant, unashamed and (as it happens, evidence retailed on this site and elsewhere attests) proven, there has in reality been a notable absence of impartiality on Today since Brian Redhead – a co-editor of the Guardian – succeeded Robert Robinson as a presenter in 1975 or thereabouts.  As I have commented elsewhere on this site, the list to the left on HMS BBC has been evident since the late 40s at least (cf Michael Wharton’s experience as noted in The Missing Will).

    Incidentally, the “Conservatives” are letting not just themselves down but also the vast majority of the listening public by letting this bias, not just exist but, get worse without saying something.  OTOH why would Cameron do anything?  As Cameron prepares to sell out the UK he’ll need the BBC onside to bounce the electorate into passive acceptance of the “what’s good for Europe – well, the EU political class anyway – is good for Britain” theme.


    • Geyza says:

      Cameron is ONE OF THEM! why would he do anything about it?  He is a climate-changey-multi-culti-liberal-lefty third wayer.  He is NOT a conservative in any way, shape or form!  he NEVER defends the conservatives from BBC attacks, because he agrees with them.

      IF the tories do not get rid of Cameron/Osborne/Clarke and the traitor Hague and replace them with a real conservative soon, this country will be finished!  Then the conservatives will deserve to lose the next election.


      • NotaSheep says:

        Of course Cameron won’t attack the BBC, it was partly due to their positive reporting of his performances at the Conservative Party Conference that Cameron defeated Davis to win the party leadership. The BBC knew that a Tory would be likely to win the next general election and it was obviously preferably to have a convictionless Tory politician like Cameron as leader than some one like David Davis who might actually have enacted some much needed right-of-centre reforms.

        The fact that Cameron’s Eton background would give the BBC and their Labour allies an easy stick with which to beat him was of course a bonus. How much harder would it have been to have attacked the background of David Davis; a background much less priviledged than most of Labour’s then cabinet and now shadow cabinet?


  11. Martin says:

    Why is the BBC even giving time to this Liebore stunt? They’re not in power so they can waste money on what they like, so long as it’s not MY money.


    • Umbongo says:

      If only Martin: this is your money.  The expenditure is wholly or partially met from “short money” by which taxpayers cough up to “help” opposition parties with their costs.


    • Geyza says:

      Any time and resources which are used by the police in co-operating with this ridiculous investigation is tax-payers money.

      If I was the home secretary I would order the police to not co-operate with this Miliband vanity project.

      He is behaving like a scorned, dumped lover who cannot accept he has been dumped and so, in complete denial, pretends the relationshi[ is ongoing.

      Labour got a kicking in 2010 greater than John major got in 1997.  They lost. Big time!  They were slaughtered by the electorate and yet continue to pretend that they have power and influence.

      It is almost sad to watch, how pathetic they are.  They really should be finally put out of our misery.


  12. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Wow, first Davies laughs at Gibbs’ objection to a Labour-controlled deal, then actually taunts him.  “You’re not just a bit jealous that they’ve got a big independent commission…”  Giggle.

    No coherent response to any of Gibbs’ points, just reading out the Labour talking points on the issue.  A poor performance.


  13. cjhartnett says:

    Utterly no point in getting aerated at the Beebs morning Marxism as peddled every day on the Toady Times.
    Davis?…Webb?…these fops from prep schools are scratching posts for the toothless truffle hunters that are Naughtie and Humphrys.
    Montague has put back the cause of equal opps twenty years, so the whole gabfest is pantomine for the privileged and the navel gazers.
    Personally, I think that we should take a Class Action to reclaim 1/48th of the licence fee money…roughly about how much radio time taken up by the Eton Liberal support society debate/howling at last nights moon that is the ToadyShow.
    Maybe a minibus to Dignitas can be arranged…is Pratchett willing to edit it to death this coming Christmas?…


  14. RCE says:

    David is right, Gibbs was absolutely pathetic.

    I wonder if Mr Davies would defend a BNP-sponsored review on immigration as independent?